Monday, July 08, 2013

The Coming Democratic Party Campaign

Governor Dannel Malloy already has been asked countless
times whether he intends to defend his seat in the upcoming 2014 elections, to
which impertinent questions he has responded coyly – maybe yes, maybe no. This
is the default answer to questions that would prematurely commit the governor
to an open and transparent campaign.

Republicans considering running for governor have been no
less coy. Before he knocked himself off as a possible Republican contender for
Mr. Malloy’s seat, Larry Cafero was every bit the Republican gubernatorial
tease; Republicans Tom Foley and Senate Minority Leader John McKinney are still
fetchingly turning an ankle in the direction of Connecticut’s media: Maybe yes,
maybe no.

Mr. Foley launched his think tank, the Connecticut Policy
Institute (CPI), way back in May, at which time he said he would be inclined to
run again for governor, according to one report,
if Connecticut “was not faring well” at the point during which he would be prepared
to make a firm decision. CPI, which may give Mr. Foley some exposure as a big
thinker, issued its first pronunciamento on the state’s income tax.

One of the more amusing responses to CPI came from Roy Occhiogrosso. “It’s not a think tank. It’s a political front for Tom Foley.
That’s all it is. That’s all it has been. That’s all it ever will be. It’s like
pitching me on TV as an objective political analyst. People need to understand
when they agree to appear at a CPI event, they are for all intents and purposes
supporting Tom Foley’s 2014 gubernatorial campaign.”

Mr. Occhiogrosso’s predictable political response may be a bit overheated.
Initially connected as a partner with Global Strategies Group (GSG) from 2003
to 2010, Mr. Occhigrosso was tapped by then newly elected Governor Dan Malloy
to serve as his senior adviser and chief strategist. According to GSG’s site,“A top consultant on Governor Malloy’s
successful campaign bid in 2010, Occhiogrosso has since overseen all
communications operations for the Office of the Governor. In addition, he has
served as chief spokesperson and speechwriter, and advised on the framing of
all major policy issues for the Administration.”

After his stint as Mr. Malloy’s chief apologist, Mr. Occhiogrosso
vanished two years later back into the non-political woodwork, emerging briefly
from the GSG think tank to scorn Mr. Foley’s think tank. Mr. Occchigrosso’s
faux outrage may most charitably be put down to professional jealousy. In
Connecticut’s one party state, what possible purpose could be served by an
objective if partisan Republican think tank? Must be a nasty political plot to
seize political power from the Democratic political monopolists.

How rude!

There is nothing wrong with think tanks per se, provided the people associated with them produce a
thoughtful product rather than political bumper stickers.

Mr. McKinney recently announced an eight-town “Fiscal Responsibility Tour,” in the
course of which he will be “discussing” Mr. Malloy’s fatal missteps as
governor. At some point, Mr. Malloy and other incumbent Democrats will be
announcing their own “listening tours.” Mr. Malloy in particular appreciates
“listening” to Connecticut citizens; such events give the governor an
opportunity to gauge pro and con responses to his progressive programs and to
discard at will impediments to his forward progress whenever they interfere
with his self-ordained plans to re-invent Connecticut.

Federal and state party regulations, the prospect of public
campaign financing, pending nomination conventions, the election calendar, the
possibility of primaries and strategic campaign fantasies serve to distort what
should be a simple and straightforward process. Apart from partisan newspapers,
Abe Lincoln, considered the father of the modern Republican Party, had no think
tanks to draw upon, and Andy Jackson, considered the father of the modern
Democratic Party, was not in the habit of hiding his political ambitions behind
group think flower pots.

The direction and substance of the Democratic Party’s
upcoming campaigns may be adduced from gubernatorial pronouncements and the
recent actions of the Democrat dominated General Assembly. Party platforms are
affirmed in state conventions, but they are assembled by the party in power in
the course of governing. The forward movement of the Democratic Party during
the administration of the first Democratic governor in more than 20 years has
been unabashedly progressive.

In the course of the last 30 months, Democrats have, in
no special order of importance: 1) abolished Connecticut’s death penalty
shortly after a mass murder in Cheshire and just before a mass murder in Sandy
Hook; 2) under color of preventing the mass murder of school children,
restricted the purchase of guns by citizens who have no intention of murdering
school children; 3) created a Mike Lawlor get-out-of-jail-early credit program
that loosed upon two cities two early release prisoners who murdered – with guns
illegally acquired – two easily forgotten victims; 4) imposed upon the state
during a malingering recession the largest tax increase in its history; 5)
removed from the state “spending cap” about &400 million so that General
Assembly Democrats will be able in the future to spend more money borrowed from
young people who have their eyes fixed on the exit signs; 6) boosted
Connecticut’s minimum wage, a politically useful measure that will induce
companies who hire low wage workers to recover lost costs by not hiring low
wage workers…

But really, never mind all that grousing. Keep your eye on
the glittering disco campaign ball. Objective reality is, after all, a mental
construct. What matters are the highly entertaining fictions produced by campaign
consultants who pop in and out of the political coo-coo clock every fifteen
minutes on the hour with their focus group tested messages.